Intracoronary ultrasound predictors of adverse outcomes after coronary artery interventions

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1992-11, Vol.20 (6), p.1385-1390
• Main Authors: Tenaglia, Alan N., Buller, Christopher E., Kisslo, Katherine B., Phillips, Harry R., Stack, Richard S., Davidson, Charles J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - adverse effects; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - statistics & numerical data; Angioplasty, Balloon, Laser-Assisted - adverse effects; Angioplasty, Balloon, Laser-Assisted - statistics & numerical data; Atherectomy, Coronary - adverse effects; Atherectomy, Coronary - statistics & numerical data; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiovascular system; Chi-Square Distribution; Confidence Intervals; Coronary Disease - diagnostic imaging; Coronary Disease - epidemiology; Coronary Disease - therapy; Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging; Coronary Vessels - surgery; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Prognosis; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic investigative techniques; Ultrasonography - instrumentation; Ultrasonography - methods; Ultrasonography - statistics & numerical data
• ISSN: 0735-1097; 1558-3597
• DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(92)90252-I

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between qualitative and quantitative lesion characteristics as assessed by intracoronary ultrasound imaging and adverse outcomes after coronary artery interventions. Background. Restenosis and other adverse outcomes after coronary artery interventions may be difficult to predict from clinical or angiographic data. Intracoronary ultrasound imaging provides additional data that could prove useful. Methods. Immediately after successful coronary artery interventions (angiographic residual stenosis ≤50%), 69 patients underwent intracoronary ultrasound imaging. Images were assessed qualitatively for plaque composition and topography and for dissection. Quantitative data included measurement of minimal lumen diameter, lumen area, plaque area and percent area stenosis at the treatment and adjacent reference sites. Adverse outcome was defined as death, coronary bypass surgery, myocardial infarction or angiographic restenosis. Results. Of the 69 patients, 1 died, 3 had bypass surgery and 1 had a myocardial infarction before planned 6-month repeat catheterization. Two patients were lost to follow-up study. Of the remaining 62 patients, 56 (90%) agreed to follow-up catheterization and 25 (45%) of the 56 had restenosis. Thus, 30 patients had an adverse outcome and 37 had no adverse event. The incidence of dissection detected by ultrasound imaging after an intervention was significantly greater in patients with than in those without a subsequent adverse event (63% vs. 35%, p < 0.05). The severity of dissection also appeared to be related to outcome (p < 0.05). Other qualitative and quantitative variables were not significantly different between the two patient groups. Conclusions. Dissection, as assessed by intracoronary ultrasound imaging after a coronary artery intervention, can identify patients at increased risk of subsequent adverse events. Additional studies are warranted to explore whether such imaging may allow modification of interventional procedures to improve outcome.